There were MANY choices for The Undertaker's opponent at Wrestlemania 32. John Cena, until he got injured, Sheamus and Kevin Owens all could have gotten the chance to face Taker at the big event. They didn't though and completely and seemly out of nowhere, WWE announces The Undertaker would face Shane McMahon for the control of Raw inside Hell in a Cell. I'm sorry, what? Who? Why??? Booking wise, it's one of the most bizarre main event matches in WWE but let's weigh the good and the bad!
PROS
1. Genuine Shock Factor
By a show of hands, who thought this was going to be the match for The Undertaker? OK, put your hands down. There was no one who could have predicted this and in a time when there are plenty of leaks and no more secrets in professional wrestling, this match is a breath of fresh air in that department. Sometimes, the great thing about professional wrestling is not knowing and if we were going just solely based on that, then this is a major positive for the match. While I'll talk my displeasure down in the cons, this is definitely something different for the big show of Wrestlemania.
2. Stipulation
There are two major stipulations for this match that sets it apart. One, it's going to be contested inside Hell in a Cell. Now, WWE has a PPV exclusive for the Hell in a Cell, so it's rare when the match takes place outside the month of October now. Last time it happened was four years ago at Wrestlemania 28. Since the match is known for its cruelty and brutality, it's something to get excited about. The other stipulation says that if Shane McMahon can defeat The Undertaker, he will then take control of Raw, which in turn means he'll run the WWE. This could be seen as a good sign for wrestling fans, as many have thought that Vince hasn't had his pulse on what wrestling fans have wanted. Only thing is, that only affects the storyline, not backstage politics. It would be nice to see what things they'll allow with Shane in control. These two things along make you want to watch the match.
3. One to Watch
While Shane McMahon in not a trained wrestler like some of the other guys on the roster, he's put on better matches than a lot of guys in locker room. He's had hardcore wars with Big Show, Kane and many others. His resume alone should prove his worth and why you'd want to see him compete. This match will be something to watch. This is what wrestling is all about. Intrigue, storyline and payoff. We'll see the payoff on April 3rd.
CONS
1. Better Options for Taker
On paper, in the year 2016, with Undertaker is in his 50s and Shane McMahon not having wrestled a match in over 5 years, this looks like a bad idea. I'm sorry for everyone who wants to really see this match and are looking forward to it, let's just face reality; there are SO many other guys way more deserving to face The Undertaker at the big event. Sheamus was just WWE Champion in November and aligned himself with The Authority and Triple H. He's since fallen from grace since then but why not give Sheamus the opportunity at challenging Taker? It would have been a competitive match that would have helped Sheamus look strong in defeat. Nope, Sheamus is now lost in the field now. John Cena was the obvious and right choice for this year's Mania, but he got injured unfortunately. I still think he could have pushed a bit harder but I guess age is catching up to Cena and he couldn't make one of his usual Superman recoveries.
I think the biggest omission was of Kevin Owens. Owens, a guy who was immediately given John Cena to feud with when he came to main roster. Owens, a guy who beat Cena CLEAN in their first ever match together. Owens is currently holding onto this thing called the Intercontinental Championship. I don't know if anyone knows or not but in his 26 year career in WWE, The Undertaker has NEVER EVER won that title. So, why not have the two clash at Wrestlemania and give Taker the one title he's never won, especially since he's at the tail end of his career? It would have given Owens something big to do and put a lot of exposure on the IC Title, which they've been trying to build up since last Wrestlemania (and failed might I add). I think with Cena out, Kevin Owens VS The Undertaker would have been the money match for not only the fans but for the WWE in general as they try to build start as more and more of their big stars prepare to retire. Bottom line, Shane McMahon, who was not even around in WWE for so long gets the honor of facing The Undertaker at Wrestlemania? It's crazy.
2. No Sense or Real Build
I understand the storyline with the McMahon family and everything, I got that, but where did all this come from? I'm the type of guy who likes his matches built up. I'm used to seeing the matches built up near the Royal Rumble and around that time. At least the main event matches. For this match to just randomly come about for no other reason but some kind of secret that we don't know about doesn't make sense. It's intriguing but this is Wrestlemania and this is The Undertaker. He deserves to have a proper match, especially with him almost retiring. He shouldn't be used as a weapon in a family dispute. It's dumb.
3. The Disbelief of It
The Undertaker has defeated Jake Roberts, Kane twice, Triple H thrice, Shawn Michaels twice, Randy Orton, Batista, Mark Henry, Edge and CM Punk at Wrestlemania. Am I really suppose to believe that Shane McMahon, the son of the Chairman of WWE, really has a REAL shot to defeat The Undertaker at Wrestlemania and give him his 2nd loss at the big event? Yes, this is a scripted form of entertainment but even in that, my mind will not allow me to suspend belief that far. Look at that list! All those guys I named are Hall of Famers, three guys who have already been inducted. In what world am I to believe that Shane stands any chance? As a fan, I know you all want to believe because it could mean Shane in charge and a better program but COME ON! Shane McMahon beating The Undertaker at Wrestlemania means that he joins Brock Lesnar as the two men to defeat Taker at Wrestlemania. 22-2? Hell no! It would be a spit in the face of everyone who he beat, especially Bray Wyatt, who should have defeated Taker at WM31. Why would you have Shane beat Taker over a guy like Wyatt, who's going to be around in WWE for awhile? Shane defeating The Undertaker just doesn't make sense and it would make The Undertaker look incredibility weak and human, two traits not associated with his character.
Shane McMahon VS The Undertaker has all the potential to be one of the most spectacular and awe inspiring matches at Wrestlemania but it's also a match that I'll always look back and wonder, why Shane? That is, unless something magical and amazing happens that only could have been possible with Shane. I'm going into this match with an open mind, mainly because Sting and Triple H had such an exciting match last year and I was very down on that. I'm looking forward to seeing what WWE has in store for the fans with this match.
Next, up, it's my most anticipated Wrestlemania match!
No comments:
Post a Comment